Summary: In a dramatic turn of events, the Madras High Court has changed the sentence of S. Muruganantham, who was found guilty of encouraging his wife to take her own life in 2013. The case highlights issues of caste discrimination and domestic problems.
On November 25, 2025, the Madras High Court, led by Judge M. Nirmal Kumar, decided to reserve its judgment in the case of S. Muruganantham vs. The State. The judgment was announced on December 2, 2025. The case was about the tragic death of Vidhya, who set herself on fire on November 27, 2013, in Tiruppur.
Vidhya, who was from the Hindu-Paraiyar community, fell in love with S. Muruganantham, from the Hindu-Kammalar community. Despite opposition, they ran away and started a life together in Tiruppur. They had a baby girl, Visalakshi. However, their relationship got worse, with accusations of harassment and discrimination based on caste.
On November 27, 2013, a heated argument between the couple led Vidhya to set herself on fire. Neighbors intervened, breaking the roof tiles to put out the flames. Despite being rushed to the Government Hospital in Tiruppur, Vidhya died from her injuries on December 5, 2013.
"The deceased would have died of septicemia due to burn injuries," stated the postmortem report.
Initially, S. Muruganantham was sentenced to ten years for encouraging suicide, and three years for cruelty. Additionally, he faced charges under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
The court found that the change to the SC/ST Act mentioned in the charges was not applicable as it was made after the incident. Thus, his conviction under this law was dismissed. However, he was convicted under a similar rule from the 1989 Act.
Judge M. Nirmal Kumar changed the sentence for encouraging suicide from ten years to five, considering S. Muruganantham's behavior during the trial and his current work in an open prison.
The court decided to reduce S. Muruganantham's sentence for encouraging his wife's suicide from ten years to five years, while dismissing some charges due to legal technicalities. This decision was based on his conduct and the timeline of the laws involved.
"The appellant intentionally insulted the deceased with intent to humiliate her in public view," the court noted, highlighting the seriousness of the situation.
